list_config_versions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating what each version record contains and why an agent would list versions. It does not describe pagination or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output fields, followed by the usage scenario. There is no redundant or filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete for correct selection and invocation. The only minor gap is that it does not mention pagination or whether all versions are returned in one call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single `slug` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only implies that a config identifier is required, without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list every version of a config. It also names the returned fields, which makes the tool's output purpose concrete and distinguishable from siblings like list_configs or get_config.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage conditions: audit history or compare revisions before update_config or delete_config. It does not explicitly distinguish when to use this versus list_configs or get_config for non-version metadata, but the primary selection context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.